Williams Divorce and Family Law
Recent Court Rulings
Minnesota Association for Justice Divorce and Family Law Columns
Winter 2007
Court of Appeals
Spousal Maintenance
In re the Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst
(Filed December 12, 2006)
Appellant Wife sought spousal maintenance from Respondent Husband. The parties had been married for seven years, and Appellant had left the work force when the parties’ had twin children. At the time of the parties’ separation, Appellant had no employment and no income. Appellant had previously worked as a remediation specialist at an insurance company. The district court denied Appellant’s request for maintenance based upon the finding that Appellant was capable of supporting herself. The district court imputed income to Appellant of $14.50 per hour for a 40-hour work week based upon the conclusions of a vocational expert.
On appellate review, the Court of Appeals ruled that it was not necessary for the district court to find bad faith in Appellant’s insufficient actual income, and that the district court’s use of the term “imputation” of income was poorly chosen. The district court had also made errors in its findings pertaining to the chronology of Appellant’s work history. The Court of Appeals ruled that the mistakes were irrelevant, and modified the findings accordingly.
Child Custody; Out-of-State Move
In re the Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood
(Filed January 2, 2007)
Appellant Wife was awarded sole physical custody in 2002, subject to a restriction on Wife’s right to remove the child from Minnesota. In 2006, Appellant sought to change the minor child’s state of residence from Minnesota to New York. Respondent Husband opposed the motion, and the district court denied the motion based upon Appellant’s failure to establish a prima facie case for custody modification.
On appellate review, the Court of Appeals ruled that the child custody modification statute (Minn. Stat. § 518.18) is to be applied narrowly, i.e., only to cases in which the subject is the child’s primary residence. In this instance, the Court of Appeals ruled that the district court erroneously applied § 518.18, when in fact, the subject of this case was not the child’s primary residence, but the proposed move to New York City. The Court of Appeals ruled that the district court should have applied § 518.175, which requires Appellant to satisfy a lesser burden of proof.
The Court of Appeals further ruled that since the district court applied § 518.18, it did not scrutinize Appellant’s reasons for requesting the move and how the move would impact the child. On remand, those considerations would be relevant in light of the Court of Appeals directive that the district court apply § 518.175 and assess the child’s best interests in the circumstances.
Appellant also asserted constitutional and judicial appointment issues which the Court of Appeals concluded were not necessary to addressed at the appellate level.